http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/04/07/29/ae_balta001.cfm

Fox forgets convention in Democratic coverage

By Victor Balta

I set out this week to provide a fair and balanced look at the coverage of the Democratic National Convention, as brought to us by CNN and Fox News.

Don't worry, though. In keeping with the tenets of the Fox News Channel - the journalism beacon that it is - I'll do the same when the Republican convention rolls around in August.

CNN Monday night was pretty ho-hum. Al Gore spoke, conservative and liberal analysts talked about it. Jimmy Carter spoke, conservative and liberal analysts talked about it.

You know how it goes. It's what you expect when you tune in to watch a political convention during a presidential election year.

We know these events are staged. We know the speeches are rehearsed. We generally know what to expect.

Both parties get a fair shot. They each have their dog-and-pony show, and voters take that and do with it what they like.

So you can imagine my surprise when I popped in a tape of Fox News' "coverage" from Monday night.

It wasn't there.

I mean, they were there at the FleetCenter in Boston. They had cameras there. They had reporters there. They had signs there. They even had the all-important Democratic National Convention logo on the screen.

But the coverage wasn't there.

Fox's primetime bulldog Bill O'Reilly laid out the plan early on. As his show began, Gore was preparing to take the stage.

"We might listen in for a minute or so," O'Reilly said. "But we're trying to stay away from partisan speech in both conventions this year."

Has the actual meaning of the word "partisan" been forgotten somewhere in this TV talking-head rhetoric?

By definition, a national political convention - Republican or Democrat - is partisan.

The claim that Fox News won't show partisan speech at the convention makes about as much sense as ESPN saying it won't show balls and strikes at a baseball game.

Instead, O'Reilly said, his show will "give you coverage of the controversy and the 'inside stuff.'"

Indeed, the meaty "inside stuff" O'Reilly had to offer was prolonged discussion of Teresa Heinz Kerry's "shove it" comment and an interview with Ralph Nader, instead of airing the speech Gore was giving at the same time.

Apparently, that's inside stuff. That's going to help me determine who to vote for in November.

It seems Fox News only reports what it thinks you need to know - even if the live event is happening right behind its commentators' backs.

This means you're at the will of their news editors.

It means that anyone watching only Fox News Monday night never heard the most repeated and scathing line from former President Carter's speech, "In the world at large, we cannot lead if our leaders mislead."

Instead, they heard more about Heinz Kerry's remark, John Kerry's less-than-perfect first pitch at Fenway Park, and saw pictures of Kerry in some plastic suit at Cape Canaveral.

O'Reilly said on his show Tuesday that the purpose of Fox News' coverage is to analyze what's happening at the convention, "not bring you wall-to-wall blather."

So, one would think O'Reilly the analyst would at least know what's going on at the convention.

As he wrapped up an interview with Ben Affleck Tuesday night, O'Reilly told viewers, "We'll let you listen to Ted Kennedy for a little while, if he shows up."

O'Reilly obviously hadn't noticed that Kennedy had already been speaking on the stage behind him for seven minutes.

This is not a partisan argument. It's a journalistic one.

Part of the driving force behind 24-hour news channels was that they could provide the wire-to-wire coverage and analysis of these types of events.

Fox News is now stuck.

If it sticks with this misguided form of coverage for the Republican convention, it'll be doing viewers the same disservice. But if it changes and covers more speeches, it would seem unfair and unbalanced, and nobody wants that.

I'm just as cynical as the next guy when it comes to politics, but I still believe that despite the prewriting and the contrived pomp and circumstance, speeches are still the hallmark of the system. The speech is the only part of the process that connects us directly to the politician.

Fox News has decided that what matters most is what its own pundits have to say.

So, now I've reported. You decide.

Usually don't correct people's spelling errors but I have to point out that it's FAUX News.

This seems the best fit to me.
I wasn't impressed enought to give CNN the report of "average" either. Watching all of the coverage I was shocked at how much of "the game" was covered from the "locker room." I thought that was a bad thing, since the scoreboard is pretty hard to see from there. I guess seeing where the players are getting naked is more interesting than mundane issues like what we say we went to see.
I wonder, if the guy who put on the emmy's can't make people look at politics, what are we supposed to do? Beyond that, with all the backstage, "special access" interest, I don't think any show could be a success. By definition, the stage is the impotant part of the play, if you are only watching what's behind the curtains, you miss the concept of the performance.
I don't really want to engage in whether the "show" is necessary of not. I would agree, that is worth wondering, but at this point, I accept that both parties put on a show, and the idea is bring people in. I got the distinct impression that this coverage was specifically designed to let the air out of the baloon that Democrats paid to inflate.
In short, I think the public would have recieved a better show if the media would have watched it like an audience, rather than a proctologist.

I've become very disappointed with CNN lately. They seem to be running scared of FAUX.
Even on their morning show one of the anchors today said Kerry was a flip-flopper as if it were a given fact.

Have you noticed the tendency to emphasize the Kerry-Edwards campaign as the "Heintz-Kerry" campaign? I don't mean the assassins either, I have noticed it in other areas as well. That just seems unethical, but what do I know?

I now watch MSNBC more than any other cable news station. The others have just become dispecable.

Admin, you'd probably be the one to ask, I thought that NBC was the network that fired Peter Arnet?
I kinda' hold the hold broadcast medium responsible for that, but I have a real problem watching NBC channels, thinking they are the ones who let him be villified, and then resign. I am no expert, but I had come to respect his carreer, and, in retrospect, I think he was clearly stating the truth. Further, he wasn't even on an American channel, he was being interviewed as to his personal views. I don't recall any national security information, no troop movements, and certainly no CIA Operatives were exposed. I Can't explain how journalists could so easily assassinate Arnet, yet they seem to form ranks around a sham like Novak. It really does look like a new "Dark Ages" when we rely on this for a world view.

Much to my surprise, it was on MSNBC last night that I saw Keith Olberman's Countdown with a piece called "Terrorist Attack Conspiracy?". It was about the alleged terrorist who was captured a few days ago in New Mexico with an unacceptable passport and $7,000 cash. She supposedly came from somewhere in Africa via the Middle East and then on to Mexico, where she crossed the border into the US illegally. They say her name matched one of the names on their most-wanted terrorist list. Olberman was suggesting that the whole thing was a plant by the Bush administration to take attention away from the convention and make it look as if we're winning the war on terror. I've been trying to find the piece on the web so I can post it, but it's not up yet. I will when I find it. In any case, MSNBC seems to have become a bit more fair-minded than CNN lately. Haven't watched it that much, but from what I've seen, that's my impression.

I guess you don't watch Chris Matthews' and Joe "Dead Intern" Scarbourgh's shows. :o

Admin James, I like your coverage of the "coverage" of those networks.

There should be a Ralph Nader network news channel. :lol: Equal coverage, you know.

I used to watch Hardball a lot, until I got tired of Chris Matthews yelling down everybody and not letting them talk. Once in a blue moon, if I've got nothing else to do, I'll see if I can stomach Scarborough. Usually I find I can't. And one big reason I stopped watching MSNBC was that I never knew when Ann Coulter's ugly mug would pop up on the screen. She's so scary! So in general, no, I don't watch it much anymore. I do find Bill Press and Pat Buchanan interesting, but I don't often have time to watch when they're on. I'd usually get my main daily dose of news from CNN, but I'm beginning to think I might try more MSNBC. Just keep Ann Coulter off the screen! :o

I thought FAUX would've put Coulter as one of their analysts to show that they are "Fair and Balanced"

Sharpon and Coulter. Even weights. Can you weigh hot air? :huh: